Meyer v. State
Opinion
OPINION
By the Court,
Bruce Arthur Meyer appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the charge of sexual assault. Meyer’s only valid argument is that his guilty plea was not entered voluntarily and intelligently because he was not informed, on the record, that probation is not available to one convicted of sexual assault. A review of the record supports this contention. We reverse.
On September 30, 1978, Meyer allegedly forced a child to perform fellatio. Meyer was charged with lewdness with a minor, NRS 201.230, and sexual assault of a minor, NRS 200.364, 200.366.
Pursuant to a plea bargain negotiated with the district attorney, an amended information was filed charging Meyer *887 with sexual assault, in lieu of sexual assault with a minor. 1 In addition, the state promised to dismiss the other charges against Meyer at the time of his sentencing. 2 Meyer pleaded guilty to sexual assault.
The district judge questioned Meyer to determine whether the plea was voluntarily entered and whether Meyer had a complete understanding of the crime charged and of the consequences of his plea. In an effort to establish on the record that the guilty plea was constitutionally valid, the district judge generally followed the guidelines set forth in Higby v. Sheriff, 86 Nev. 774, 476 P.2d 959 (1970). However, the district judge’s acceptance of Meyer’s guilty plea was fatally defective because the record is devoid of any indication that Meyer was informed that sexual assault is not a probational offense. 3
Whether or not probation is available is critical to the defendant’s understanding of the consequences of his guilty plea. Therefore, when an offense is not probational, the district judge has a duty to insure that the record discloses that the defendant is aware of that fact. Wells v. State, 396 A.2d 161 (Del. 1978) and Wood v. Morris, 554 P.2d 1032 (Wash. 1976). 4
*888 The failure to adequately inform Meyer of the consequences of his plea created a manifest injustice that may be corrected by setting aside the conviction and allowing Meyer to withdraw his guilty plea. See NRS 176.165. 5 The order denying withdrawal of the plea was an abuse of discretion. Consequently, the order is reversed and the case is remanded to the district court to permit Meyer to plead anew.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
603 P.2d 1066 (Meyer v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.